[woko]

One cannot transform 1 million into 100 millions without having 1 million in the first case (unless some debt leverage is used, but that is besides the point here). Right.

However, I fail to see how that removes any value (or makes the task look easy) regarding Mc Donald's perspective. For that one guy who transformed 1 million into 100 millions, how many actually lost most of their initial million (in stock trading)? I am like most of us here: I imagine that if I had a million somehow, then I could easily become a billionaire thanks to my wonderful intelligence and wits, because I am better than every other millionaire out there, right? That is all wishful thinking though, and I dread confronting reality to my ego.

In reality, if I had a million, I guess I would invest it into the most risk-free assets rather than bet it all in stock trading.

[peterwoerner]

If you had a million you could also get a loan with interest less than "risk free" assets. E.g. The stock market makes 7-10% but you can get a loan for 1-3%. So 1.5x your returns then become 12-16%.

Perhaps you can invest in lower risk dividend stocks which will pay out your interest + a little and 3x. If we assume those stocks only make 4% but also pay out 3% then you are looking at 16% returns. Moreover when those dividends get raised you are doing even better.

Leverage can go a long way if used well.

[Retric]

The article points out 2,000x returns where possible if he started at 18 using the equivalent of index fund investing. So, he could have underperformed the market and turned 1 million into 2 billion let alone 100m. The critical issue was not spending his inheritance rather than needing to have amazing returns over that timeframe.